9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (9) TMI 713 - SC - Indian LawsWhether the proviso to Section 17(4) inserted by the Amending Act cures the defect pointed out in Radhey Shyam only for the period between 24.9.1984 and 11.1.1989? Whether declaration mentioned in the aforesaid proviso refers to it as understood by Section 6(1) or Section 6(2)? Whether the validation provision in Section 3 of the Amending Act goes beyond the newly inserted proviso inasmuch as it cures the defect of publication of the declaration and not making of the declaration, it validates publication of the declaration under Section 6 prior and subsequent to the date of the publication under Section 4(1) of the principal Act. Whether in view of the admitted incapacity to offer, tender and pay the compensation under sub-Section (3) and (3A) of Section 17, the notification under Section 17(4) becomes void? Held that - Appeal dismissed. Enough evidence in shape of the stand taken by the LDA in its counter affidavit before the High Court, where it was asserted that the possession was already taken. Even in the present Civil Appeal, the same stand is reported with reference to a particular date, i.e., 21.5.1985 that the possession was taken and there is also a true copy of the Panchanama on record
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Land Acquisition (Uttar Pradesh Amendment and Validation) Act, 1991 (Amendment Act). 2. Constitutional validity of Sections 17(1), 17(1A), 17(3A), 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act and Section 2 of the U.P. Act No. VIII of 1994. 3. Validity of simultaneous notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. 4. Non-payment of 80% compensation under Section 17 of the Act. 5. Alleged discrimination between Ujariyaon Housing Scheme Part-II and Part-III. 6. Urgency clause and application of Section 17 of the Act. 7. Compliance with Section 5A inquiry. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Land Acquisition (Uttar Pradesh Amendment and Validation) Act, 1991 (Amendment Act): The Supreme Court upheld the Amendment Act, which was enacted to validate land acquisitions where simultaneous notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued. The Court cited the Meerut Development Authority Vs. Satvir Singh case, emphasizing that the Legislature has the power to amend the law retrospectively to cure defects pointed out by the Court. The Amendment Act was found to have suitably removed the defects identified in the Radhey Shyam Nigam case. 2. Constitutional Validity of Sections 17(1), 17(1A), 17(3A), 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act and Section 2 of the U.P. Act No. VIII of 1994: The Court rejected the argument that these sections were ultra vires the Constitution. It was held that the power to dispense with the inquiry under Section 5A in cases of urgency was not arbitrary. The Court noted that the guidelines for urgency and emergency provided in Section 17 were clear and did not constitute an unbridled or uncanalized power. 3. Validity of Simultaneous Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act: The Court ruled that the Amendment Act had effectively validated simultaneous notifications issued between 24.9.1984 and 11.1.1989. The proviso to Section 17(4) introduced by the Amendment Act allowed for such simultaneous notifications, thus curing the defect identified in earlier judgments. 4. Non-Payment of 80% Compensation under Section 17 of the Act: The Court held that non-payment of 80% compensation before taking possession did not invalidate the acquisition process. It cited the Satendra Prasad Jain case, which established that once possession is taken, the title vests in the Government, and the acquisition proceedings are not affected by the non-payment of compensation. 5. Alleged Discrimination between Ujariyaon Housing Scheme Part-II and Part-III: The Court found no invidious discrimination between the two schemes. It was noted that Ujariyaon Housing Scheme Part-III lapsed due to the non-issuance of the award within the prescribed time, necessitating a fresh notification. In contrast, the award for Ujariyaon Housing Scheme Part-II was made within time, and thus the notifications were valid. 6. Urgency Clause and Application of Section 17 of the Act: The Court upheld the application of the urgency clause, noting that the housing development and planned developments were matters of great urgency. The High Court had found sufficient material justifying the invocation of the urgency clause, and there were no allegations of mala fides against the authorities. 7. Compliance with Section 5A Inquiry: The Court reiterated that the dispensation of the Section 5A inquiry was justified in cases of urgency. It was held that the satisfaction of the Government regarding the urgency was not justiciable unless there was evidence of mala fides or lack of material to support the decision. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed all the appeals and upheld the validity of the Amendment Act, the application of the urgency clause, and the process of land acquisition under the challenged provisions. The Court found no constitutional infirmity in the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act or the Amendment Act and confirmed that the acquisitions were valid and justified.
|
